Opinion
04 Civ. 2877 (LAK).
April 19, 2005
ORDER
Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the judgment and related relief.
Plaintiff's grievance is with the Court's conclusion that his petition, insofar as it sought to vacate or modify part of the arbitration award, was not timely filed and was barred by the relevant statute of limitations. Much of his present submission is devoted to the merits of his contention with respect to the arbitration award and thus is not material to the present issue.
Insofar as plaintiff's papers are addressed to the limitations issue, they are merely an attempt to relitigate the matter, including the factual issues resolved against plaintiff after an evidentiary hearing at which he testified and was afforded an opportunity to present whatever evidence he wished to present. No valid reason is assigned for permitting such relitigation. Moreover, plaintiff now attempts to support the application with affidavits from persons whom he could have called, but did not call, as witnesses at the hearing and an additional affidavit of his own containing matters to which he could have testified, but did not testify, when he took the stand — all of this in the face of S.D.N.Y. Civ. R. 6.3, which forbids the filing of affidavits on a motion for reconsideration absent leave of court, which plaintiff did not obtain.
Plaintiff of course is correct in noting that pro se litigants are to be afforded considerable leeway. The Court has afforded him precisely that. But he is entitled to no more.
Motion denied.
SO ORDERED.